Category: Islam vs the West

Posted on

Brussels

Well, we certainly shouldn’t point our fingers at Islam, Religion of Peace™. Although one might blame The Butcher of Medina (Mohamed) and his faithful followers for hijacking Islam. Before him, it was perfectly peaceful. . . Muslims should gang up on the guy and drum him and his heretical teachings out of Islam.

Oh, wait. What’s that you say? Islam is those who faithfully follow the teachings of its founder, Mohamed, the Butcher of Medina? Oh, well, then ignore what I said earlier.

*sigh*

wir sind im krieg

It seems that Euro-weenies may finally be tumbling to a fact that Charles Martel or Jan II Sobieski would have taught them, had they bothered to do their homework, learn the lessons of history, and stop listening to the “philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide.”

Yeh, it’s war, and as long as the rest of the world blindly and foolishly heeds the lies about Islam’s peacefulness, Islam will continue its march through our societies virtually unopposed.

As Santayana’s Axiom states, “Those who do not know history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them.”

It’s past time we begin to learn from the mistakes of history.

Posted on

Evil Is as Evil Does

I’m once again questioning my FarceBook participation.

Stopping Zuckerberg’s ‘terrorism network’

From the link:

What are the reasons Facebook allowed the “Third Intifada Page” to remain online for so long while people were dying? The truth is simple: Zuckerberg is more concerned with increasing viewership and participation in the Middle East and elsewhere for his personal financial gain by increasing the value of any future public offering of shares than he is concerned with saving peoples’ lives. To Zuckerberg, if saving lives decreases viewership, he will have no part in it. Zuckerberg has become well aware that furthering and allowing terrorist death threats to remain on Facebook increases readership, which boosts the value of his shares. Facebook’s commercial objective has also obviously been to raise its user base to boost Facebook’s profits, and he will stop at nothing to make it happen.

Posted on

Reminder: Two Kinds of Muslims

1. Dishonest Muslims. These fall into two classes: a.) those who are practicing “holy deception” (taqiyya and kitman) to subvert the dar al harb and b.) those who simply lie about being Muslims for cultural or personal safety reasons.

2. Honest Muslims. These cover a short range from enablers of jihad (supplying money,personnel, matériel, [im]”moral” support, etc.) to those who actually open wage jihad against the dar al harb. (And another reminder: peaceful, “inner jihad” is BS.)

Thatisall.

And do remember:

“. . .the best thing about the inside of a terrorist’s mind was a 185-grain 10mm hollow-point bullet entering at high speed.”–Dink Chavez (Character in Tom Clancy’s “Rainbow Six”)

No, that is not all. How in the world did you think it would be, hmmm? 😉

Muslims and Muslim apologists who use “holy deception” (“taqiyya” or “holy lies” and “kitman” which is one-sided, deliberately deceptive propaganda) to gull stupid “unbelievers” into accepting their statements that Islam is a “religion of peace” (but, of course it is, if one thinks of “peace” as either a garden on the unprotected surface of the Moon or one of the circles of Hell) are, of course, type 1.a. Muslims. One of their fav techniques is to cite verses from the Koran that seem to implor even openly direct!–good intentions toward unbelievers. These verses are all from Mohamed’s early period in Mecca, but once he was kicked out of Mecca, his message, his words as well as his open behavior, underwent a dramatic transformation into a message advocating murder, pillage, rape, torture and slavery for unbelievers. And it is these later proclamations that are the real Islam, for,

2:106 “Whatever of Our revelations We repeal or cause to be forgotten, We will replace them with something superior or comparable. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? Do you not know that Allah reigns sovereign over the heavens and earth and besides Him you have no protector or helper? Would you question your messenger [Mohamed] as Moses was questioned in his time? Those who exchange their faith for disbelief have gone astray from the right path.”

Remember that the next time someone quotes the early, Mecca-period,

Sura 2:256 “2:256: “There is no compulsion in religion.” (

A very small snippet that does not really reflect the context, but that’s the way “kitman” works.

)
. . .that later Mohamed said many, many things like this, abrogating his earlier “peaceful” verses:

Sura 9:29-33 “Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah. . . ”

Sura 8.12 “Remember thy lord has inspired the angels with the message. Give firmness to the believers and instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite them above their necks and smite the fingertips of them.”

Sura 9.5 “When the sacred months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them.”

Sura 47.4 “When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads. Until you have made a wide slaughter among them tie up the remaining captives.”

Go ahead, examine all the above in context.

Posted on

“Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it commits suicide.” — James Burnham

Re-“printing” this from January 20th, 2010.

It’s interesting to me that simple common sense is so completely forsaken that such things as this can even gain an audience in a Western society:

Muslim police say Islam not to blame for terror attacks

Muslim police officers have rebelled openly against the [British] Government’s anti-terrorism strategy, warning that it is an “affront to British values” which threatens to trigger ethnic unrest.

The plain fact of the matter is that so-called “radical” Muslims are at the dead solid center of Islam. It is those vanishingly few genuine “moderates” who are apostate Muslims, heretics, deniers of Islam and its prophet, the Butcher of Medina, and his diktat of hate, intolerance and jihad against any who refuse to embrace his cult. Those who are genuine followers of Mohamed are either open jihadists or enablers pretending to be “moderates” while practicing al taqiyah and acting as enablers for their openly jihadist brothers in arms.

Anyone who can allow such behavior as that linked above by police officers in a Western society is simply an active participant in societal sabotage, an enemy of the West and of human rights, decency and honesty.

h.t. Atlas Shrugs

Slight update:

Note another practice permitted–yea! encouraged–by the “prophet” that closely resembles the outright lying that characterizes taqiyyah is the Muslim practice of kitman. Kitman is quite similar to the most common lies told us by politicians, academicians and Mass MEdia Podpeople here in the West. It is lying by omission, telling a part of the truth in such a way as to remain “factual” while still committing a lie. Decent people in the West find such behavior reprehensible, but MOhamed taught such behavior as being not just permissible but in many cases desirable. Most such cases with Muslims are, of course, desirable when dealing with non-Muslims (although Mohamed also allowed lying to fellow Muslims in some cases. Try to get a Muslim to admit that).

One place kitman and taqiyyah are most effective in bamboozling stupid people in the West is on the very nature if Islam, “the religion of peace”. Of course, the “peace” of Islam is simply the religious, social, cultural, legal, and behavioral submission of a slave to a master, but Islamic apologists don’t want to (and so do not) go there, and roundly condemn anyone who does (because truth is anathema to these scum). Regularly cited by these liars are the so-called “peaceful verses” of the Koran (yeh, yeh, Islamic apologists have insisted that “Qu’ran” is more respectful. Eat my shorts.). What they do not want you to know is that not only are the so-called “peaceful verses” outnumbered at about 7-3 by the verses advocating violence, but that Mohamed’s own exegetical principle, which scholars call “abrogation,” dictates that any “apparent” conflict between his sayings is to be resolved by a saying uttered later taking precedence, abrogating an earlier, conflicting saying. Interestingly enough, the “peaceful verses” came early in Mohamed’s career as a con man, while the verses advocating violence against unbelievers came later.

That is why I hold the opinion that a more accurate descriptive of Islam is “Islam: Hate Cult.”

Surrender to Islam on any front by the West is stupid, immoral and suicidal.

Have you ever had a Muslim “friend”? If so, only one of two things obtained:

1. The Muslim who was your friend was an apostate or
2. The Muslim who was your “friend” deceived you, because Mohamed was adamant that his followers could not have friends who were unbelievers, and it is universal Islamic doctrine that his words are eternal, unchangeable, inerrant and infallible. (Koran 5:51, 5:80, 3:28, 3:118 and many others.)

Posted on

Shallow Facility Masquerading as Insight

Charlie Martin has some observations and bloviations about the so-called “War On Terror” (an abysmally stupid term). Some of his observations are moderately interesting in a shallow and jejune way, but this is just stupid:

. ..It could be argued — and has been argued, and will no doubt be argued again — that the unnamed opponent is the religion of Islam itself.

I personally know too many Muslims who are good, kind, gentle people to be comfortable with that; I’ve known too many Christians of whom I couldn’t say the same thing, and know too much history to be comfortable with the idea that Christianity has an objective claim to some inherent moral superiority. Be that as it may, pragmatically if Islam itself is the enemy, then our military objective would have to be the end of Islam as a world religion.

Leaving the first paragraph aside, his personal acquaintanceship with “Muslims who are good, kind, gentle people” is completely, totally and absolutely irrelevant. “Muslims” who are “good, kind, gentle people” are apostates or deceivers, either directly contradicting the teachings and example of the founder of their hate cult–a founder whose every word and deed are unimpeachable and didactic as far as Islam is concerned, OR they are practicing what The Butcher of Medina instructed his disciples by both word and deed to do whenever they do not have a position from which they can dictate to unbelievers: practice so-called “holy” lies and deceptions.

It’s all there in their infallible and unimpeachable holy writ, and anyone–ANYONE–who denies a single solitary word in it is either an apostate or an unbeliever from the getgo and, according to that very writ, under sentence of death.

Fact. Period. End of story. Muslims who are “good, kind, gentle people” simply do not exist.

As to the second part of his thesis, well, what can you expect from someone who is a biblically illiterate Buddhist? “I. . . know too much history to be comfortable with the idea that Christianity has an objective claim to some inherent moral superiority.” Oh, and how can he say such a thing? Because people who CLAIM to be Christians have committed horrific, savage, brutal acts that are normative for Islam? Hmm. Martin disregards, or is ignorant of, the simple fact that horrific acts that are normative are both DEMANDED by Mohamed in dealing with unbelievers and apostates and are directly contradictory to the life and teachings of Jesus. Thus, while ANY Muslim (or group of Muslims) can legitimately assert that they are committing horrific acts in the name of their prophet of hate and his hijacked moon god, any person claiming to perform such acts in the name of Christ is a liar.

Let me make that clearer for any dimwits that might find Martin’s words compelling: Any persons, at any time in history or during the contemporary era who claim to be serving Christ (that is, be Christian) when committing horrific acts are NOT Christians; they are liars. Any persons at any time in history or during the contemporary era who claim to be serving Mohamed and his hate cult (that is, to be Muslim, in submission to Mohamed’s teachings) when committing horrific acts is an honest disciple of The Butcher of Medina.

The difference could not be more stark, and anyone who claims differently is a fool and a liar.

Do note that even fools and liars can make cogent observations on matters outside their foolish lies, and Martin does root up an acorn or two, but he’s wrong that Islam is not our enemy, just as he’s limited in his thinking that if it were we’d have to extirpate Islam by means of “genocide”. . . strangely applied to a religious cult with no definitive racial characteristics.

Posted on

I Had a Dream. . .

. . . wherein, on the anniversary of 9-11, a movie was released celebrating the death of The Butcher of Medina. In the movie, he was hunted down, fed alive to hogs, the hogs butchered and fed to dogs, the dogs’ excrement was gathered and the toxic end product of Mohamed, filtered through the alimentary canals of both hogs and dogs, was used to kill kudzu.

Hey! It was just a dream, ya know?

Never forget: true disciples of The Butcher of Medina brought down the twin towers and two more airplanes–one into the Puzzle Palace, one (thanks to courageous passengers) in a field where their memories are now being desecrated with a monument to Islam, cult of Hate.

Posted on

On NOT Slandering the “Prophet” of Islam

(Just don’t do it. Nope. Don’t.)

During his UN speech when he once again asserted a causative link between a Youtube video and the murder of four Americans, The Zero uttered these infamous words,

 

 

The good thing about this is that one can point out that, according to Islam’s OWN so-called “holy” texts, their (mythical? Some serious scholars say so. *shrugs* Who knows… or cares?) “prophet” was a mass murderer, rapist, pedophile, liar, oath-breaker, torturer, slaver, and thief. And not only was he all those things, but he commanded his followers to emulate those behaviors.

Facts.

So, it’d be really, really hard to slander Mohamed, the Butcher of Medina, unless one were to say he was the offspring of a rabid dog raping a syphilitic sow.

(Do notice the subjunctive mood indicating that I did NOT say Mohamed was the offspring of a rabid dog raping a syphilitic sow, because the subjunctive mood construction indicates the citation of an event that did not occur–that NON-event being the uttering of a claim that Mohamed was the offspring of a rabid dog raping a syphilitic sow–a claim I did not make. Of course, if someone were to bring DNA evidence forward… )